How will success be determined in the WSOP's delayed final table?

Argue if you will over whether the World Series of Poker was right in deciding to delay this year's Main Event final table for 117 days, but a more interesting debate I think is:

How will delay's success or failure be judged?

I'm a fan of WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack. A reasonable debate can be had over whether his, and Harrah's, aggressive commercialization of the WSOP is fuel for poker's continued popularity or a tragedy to tradition, but I don't think you can debate whether he listens to players and acts quickly on their suggestions.

Case in point: The tent used for some of the events last year is gone this year. Folks didn't like it, and he figured out a solution. But in that example, failure was easy to diagnose. Players - lots of them - grumbled loudly about the playing conditions.

But what's the benchmark for success or, more importantly, failure of the final table delay?

Will a mass outcry of opposition from players be as convincing when in reality only nine players - not the hundreds like in the tent example - are affected? And how many of the nine will have to argue against it for their concerns to carry weight?

Short of ESPN saying, "Hey, we didn't get the ratings we were hoping for," or a PR nightmare if one of the nine finalists doesn't make it the final table (death, visa holdup, etc.), do see any way at all this experiment can possibly be labeled a failure by WSOP officials?

- SCOTT

Comments

[mn156]

I think when you see 2-4 players collude or soft play each other it will prove what a bad idea this is. Talk about honor and sportsmanship all you want, but when you put people in a position to make millions (for some it will be more than they will make in a lifetime) that all goes out the window.

Guys could develop code words/hand signals/gestures/etc to trap opponents. If you got a final table of 3 amatuers vs Ivey/Lederer/Hellmuth/Cunningham/Raymer/Forrest the amatuers would be foolish to not try to cut a deal at least with each other.

I know I would be open to making side deals (not to cheat or collude) to exchange pieces of the action with some of the other final table guys. All it takes is three players to decide to pool their winnings based upon beginning final table chip count to turn this thing into a disaster.

Guys will have 90 days to have lawyers draw up air tight contracts to enforce the terms as opposed to the past where you would have had to rely on a handshake (which is why no one was motivated to do it).

It will be good for ESPN, but I think the real danger is to the integrity (not that the public associates gamblers with that word) of the event.

[Rant2112]

I don't think any effect on the players themselves will count at all. Their interests will be sacrificed for the 'greater good'.

Success will be judged first by ratings and then by WSOP attendance next year.

mn156 - Deals that don't include all the remaining players aren't ethical (or allowed). If there are any deals they'll have to be secret. If the WSOP finds out about the penalties will be serious.

I think you should reconsider your statement that you'd make a side deal without involving all of the players. If only some of the players have a deal then soft play and collusion are almost unavoidable.

[mn156]

rant,

I don't see anything in the tournament rules regarding staking. Only if you are agreeing to a chop does everyone at the table have to agree. I am not suggesting a chop at all, I am just saying that each player will sell a 50% (or 33% or whatever % is necessary)stake of himself to the others.

Collusion and soft play are both prohibited by the rules; however, those are merely potential side effects of having a staking arrangement.

The savvy final table participants will hire lawyers to figure all this out. I can't see it being that difficult. I guess I don't share your faith in the goodness of man when it comes to millions of dollars.

Here are the rules. I could have missed something during my quick read.

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/pdfs/wsop.tournament-rules.08.pdf

[Rant2112]

Don't worry, I have no faith in the goodness of man. I just said the deals would have to be secret.

I still think deals that don't include all of the players are unethical. I'm not saying they can be prevented.

[Gary]

I think success can only to be determine by the WSOP. and this wont be by players and even the WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack.

this will be determine by ratings of the TV set. The players have no controll in it they are simply the entertainment for the TV audience.

and I will make a prediction. if this is successful you eventually see the WSOP Main Event becoming pros only and will need a players card to enter. It may take a few years but this is eventually where it is leading.

LOOK at NASCAR today, can a total amateur racer enter his car into any of NASCAR. I could be wrong becuase I dont follow NASCAR that closely, but I dont think you are able to do it.

[mn156]

rant,

Do you find it unethical when players like Ivey and Hellmuth swap 10% stakes in each other before a tournament? This happens all the time at most big buy in tournaments.

Your concern appears to be leaving out a player when negotiating a chop. That is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about purchasing a piece of somebody's action and selling a piece of your own action. If you find that unethical, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

[Rant2112]

If they are at the same table then I think it is unethical. I'm OK with them swapping or investing in each other beforehand. The deal should be off if they end up at the same table.

Think about how this affects equity calculations when you are in a hand with someone you have a piece of. I think it is blatantly unethical.

As an example - Would you play in a 3 handed tourney if your opponents were splitting their winnings 50/50? Doesn't this give them a HUGE advantage over you?

[jherky]

Success will be if the veiwers enjoy the final table more than others. And that will help to determine ratings. Personally, I know that I will now tune into the final table where before I have seen very little of the final table because it was so boring and I have never found it particularly useful for my poker play.

Next, success will be if the final table players all play excellent poker.

Failure will only be if ratings are just horrible. And if people keep whining about it.

Question: Would the superbowl be a failure if Eli Manning went out with his redneck friends and broke his arm before the big game. There is about a month between the last playoff game and the superbowl these days. Or maybe if Tom Brady had been arrested for a DUI or something. Should they then move the Superbowl up a few weeks?

[Chi-Guy]

Everyone seem to be hung up on the collusion thing.

I don't see it happening. Yes, there is a chance. I think it is pretty remote. The final table people will be pretty smart individuals. The hands will be so highly scrutinized that any variance from normal play will draw a tremendous critique. The opportunities to collude will be few and far between.

Since it is only going to affect a few individuals, I think that the positives will outweigh the negatives. After all, those 9 people will have a grand opportunity to cash in on lucrative sponsorship deals.

I will let you know how I feel when I make the final table. Hopefully, Ante Up! will let me do an interview, or at least play my Hotline message sometime during those 3 months!

Brian

[Clever Moniker]

Sure hands are analyzed, but to say you can find a variance from their 'normal' play is nuts. Cardrunners is going to give one player their services in the down time. Everyone else can scout other players & get their own coaching & radically change their game. You won't be able to realistically find any kind of collusion based on that criteria alone.

[SportsGuy]

Gary, yes, an everyday Joe can get a car into NASCAR, which is a brand name for a multitude of racing series. NASCAR includes a number of Saturday night short tracks in addition to what I'm sure you are talking about, the now-Sprint Cup.

Obviously, no, not everyone can get a car into Cup racing, but the WSOP isn't exactly the same, which Pollack has pointed out many times over. In what other sport could someone throw down $10,000 and take part in that sport's premiere event?

As for the original question, I believe Pollack will weigh the comments of the nine participants just like he would a field of 8,000. The guy is a genius and if something works, great; and if not, he'll scrap the idea and try again.

[st]

Hmmm. I think failure is quite easy to imagine. This is being instituted because with the receding of the poker boom, ratings were way down for WSOP on ESPN in 07. This final table gimmick is an attempt to shore them back up. If it doesn't work, expect to see a LOT less poker on ESPN in '09.

[st]

jherky - "There is about a month between the last playoff game and the superbowl these days"

huh?

last playoff game - 1/20/08
super bowl xlii - 2/3/08

Two weeks. It's always been two weeks. Been that way since super bowl I (championships 1/1/67, super bowl 1/15/67). There have been one or two exceptions (like 1990, when they added two more wild card games), but otherwise, no, pretty much two weeks.

What does this have do with poker? Not a damn thing.

[gtycoon]

In response to the comment above in which they say players could collude...That is something they could do if there is the 4 month wait or not if they really wanted to.

Perhaps if they keep this for future years they may need to move the start of the main event to the start of the WSOP.

We'll see how it all turns out this year though.